NEW: Forum Rules & Guidelines

[junior]

More to the point, it seems to have become largely content-free

 

Richard

I wouldn't know, I haven't looked at it since Brexit day.

 

I am though incredibly annoyed every time I see it that if I wanted to, I couldn't start my own political thread, even if I had a line in the OP asking everyone to play nicely.

 

This is double standards, and riles me.

[Jerra]

Yes, maybe, but if the thread is now largely politics with little or no link to boating, surely what is now being posted, even if 100% polite and good humoured, breaks the latest Rules and Guidelines, and should be moderated.

That is basically why I said things were in a Nowt nor summat stage. Politics aren't allowed but a blatantly political thread (OK I understand the need at the start but it soon got well past that stage) is allowed to run. How are people to know what the "team" consider politics and what they don't?

 

EDIT: In case it isn't obvious I am not against the thread but I can't understand how/why it is still allowed.

Edited September 2, 2016 by Jerra

[RLWP]

I wouldn't know, I haven't looked at it since Brexit day.

 

I am though incredibly annoyed every time I see it that if I wanted to, I couldn't start my own political thread, even if I had a line in the OP asking everyone to play nicely.

 

This is double standards, and riles me.

 

I cheat. I click the little preview button and scan the last post. They have been pretty similar for weeks now, and as I said largely content free

 

Richard

[LoneWolf]

I wouldn't know, I haven't looked at it since Brexit day.

 

I am though incredibly annoyed every time I see it that if I wanted to, I couldn't start my own political thread, even if I had a line in the OP asking everyone to play nicely.

 

This is double standards, and riles me.

 

I've never even opened the thread.

It doesnt annoy me but it is ridiculous to have a No Politics rule and allow a political thread just because it was started by a mod - It just detracts from the rest of the rules. It sends out the signal that some rules can be broken so forum users will have less respect for the rules overall. Like you say, double standards

[gaggle]

Safe ? Almost governmental get them scared tactics , who has had or believed to have had their safety compromised to the extent the guide lines are altered to ensure the forum is safe , good grief.

[David Schweizer]

Personally I welcome the newly published rules and guidelines, however i hope that the prohibition of political debate does not mean that the discussion of social issues will also be banned. In the past there were a number of robust , but responsible debates about serious social issues, but in recent years there have been fewer threads addressing issues faced by sectors of the community. I suspect this may be down to the fear of severe moderation, or posibkly a fear by contributors that they will be ridiculed or criticised for expressing a view that may be challenged by others. Of course a cynic might suggest that the reduction in such threads is also because there are fewer contributers on the forum these days, who actually care about anyone other than themselves.

Edited September 2, 2016 by David Schweizer

[Jerra]

Personally I welcome the newly published rules and guidelines, however i hope that the prohibition of political debate does not mean that the discussion of social issues will also be banned. In the past there were a number of robust , but responsible debates about serious social issues, but in recent years there have been fewer threads addressing issues faced by sectors of the community. I suspect this may be down to the fear of severe moderation, although a cynic might suggest that there are fewer people posting who actually care about anyone else other than themselves.

I would have thought that any serious social issue would need to bring in politics as ultimately it is the politicians who have the ability to do something about them.

 

Just my opinion I am sure other opinions are available.

[David Schweizer]

I would have thought that any serious social issue would need to bring in politics as ultimately it is the politicians who have the ability to do something about them.

 

Just my opinion I am sure other opinions are available.

 

I cannot agree with you there, many of the issues to which I refer involved people's attitude towards other sectors of Society , where politicians coud have little influence, but where the offering of alternative views might influence a change in attitude. For example threads complaining about young people from contributors who had clearly forgotten what life was like when they were adolecscents, (or had a very boring adolescence!)

Edited September 2, 2016 by David Schweizer

[Jerra]

 

I cannot agree with you there, many of the issues to which I refer involved people's attitude towards other sectors of Society , where politicians coud have little influence, but where the offering of alternative views might influence a change in attitude. For example threads complaining about young people from contributors who had clearly forgotten what life was like when they were adolecscents, (or had a very boring adolescence!)

Well you are probably right on some of them but I suspect that even such mundane things as attitudes of young people will turn political. You know the sort of thing "more facilities should be provided for them" followed by a discussion about the politics.

 

We may have to agree to disagree.

[Guest]

I'm pleased to see the new rules and guidelines finally published.

 

I realise it takes a while to get this kind of thing right, (and largely I do think they have got it right), but the situation we have been in for many weeks where people are moderated to a virtual set of rules not actually available to them has not really been satisfactory.

 

The challenge now is for the moderators to act as consistently as they can against perceived breaches of these new rules, although I of course understand it is down to individual judgement, and that different moderators cannot be expected to be 100% consistent with each other on every single occasion.

 

Either way, I applaud the efforts to move us away from the very unpleasant place the forum had become. I firmly believe that whilst some complain it is sterile and no longer worth visiting, far more are relieved that action has been taken.

Whilst your last paragraph may very well be true I do think that are a significant number of members who may disagree but are now unable to because their membership of the forum has been terminated.

 

If I recall the poll results from all those weeks ago things were quite finely balanced and I am not convinced that if their views were now incorporated it would be 'far more'.

 

Of course I was one who campaigned for change but we do now seem to have a very draconian set of rules that I fear it will be quite easy to inadvertently fall foul of.

 

One persons joke can easily be interpreted as bullying or harassing someone when that might not be the intention.

 

It is good though that the rules have at least been clarified but it is now hugely hypocritical to allow the Brexit thread to run. It should be closed immediately.

 

Many weeks on from that period the forum went through I find myself more aligned with Jerra's thoughts on how that time should have been managed. Of course I accept that I, as someone who back then certainly 'pushed the boundries' may have had my membership terminated too.

 

I find myself increasingly spending time on a caravanning forum these days for very obvious reasons and that forum does allow political debate and it sometimes gets a bit heated, however it doesn't dominate the forum which is what happened here. Additionally any sign of personal abuse or plain hostility results in an instant ban no questions asked the perpetrators are zapped in an instant. As a result in the main the discussion is quite frank but with none of the stuff that used to go on here.

Edited September 2, 2016 by MJG

[Murflynn]

 

Oh dear - this is the trouble with 'rules'. Yes Alan, you are right - so I guess you will either start a campaign to have it closed or leave the forum?

 

Personally, I'm much happier in a grey, anomalous world with some tolerance

 

Richard

can we have a rule prohibiting words that I don't readily understand?

 

 

.... I'm quite a small dog and only 5 years old.

Edited September 2, 2016 by Murflynn

[RLWP]

can we have a rule prohibiting words that I don't readily understand?

 

 

.... I'm quite a small dog and only 5 years old.

See Spot run. Run Spot run

 

Richard

[Murflynn]

See Spot run. Run Spot run

 

Richard

ehh?

 

is it a regional thing?

[RLWP]

ehh?

 

is it a regional thing?

 

It's a 'learning to read book' thing - 'Dick and Jane', I think

 

Richard

[Jerra]

I find myself more aligned with Jerra's thoughts on how that time should have been managed.

I have rung the Guinness Book of records!!

[Guest]

I have rung the Guinness Book of records!!

Don't get too excited I'm sure it's only a fleeting thing....

[Jerra]

Don't get too excited I'm sure it's only a fleeting thing....

LOL

[Murflynn]

 

It's a 'learning to read book' thing - 'Dick and Jane', I think

 

Richard

................ and .................. ???

[wrigglefingers]

Okay, at the risk of stirring the hornets' nest, I'll do something rare and explain my thinking about the Brexit thread.

 

I started the Brexit thread after consulting with my fellow mods because I woke up (the morning after the Referendum) to look at the forum, as usual, and found I had so many Brexit related comments in various threads to deal with (I think counted well over 80 by 6am) I was struggling to keep up. So, the decision was taken to open a discrete (as opposed to discreet) thread wherein those comments could be contained, rather like a safety valve. Because we work as a team, but post as individuals, it has my name on it and I argued at the time, that provided debate was well-mannered and courteous, then that was what we wished to see, moreover, I believed that you, as a set of intelligent people, could stay on-topic.

 

There was some misbehaviour which was stamped on for good moderating reasons, but by and large, you have self-moderated and the thread has been at times interesting and at others, frankly boring; just like any other long-running thread really. However, I agree with some of you that the drift has meant that it is no longer on topic and much of it is currently quite dull, with an occasional insight of interest. It was never intended to be a political thread, but it has become so at various times. However, it is, as Richard pointed out, a grey area, and sometimes grey areas are good places where people can let off steam (and some people needed to after the result, which of them, I think, transcended politics and changed how they thought about their lives) and discuss what still might be a seismic change in our public and private lives. I am happy to close the thread, but that would lose the one area we have to discuss public issues that are non-boating related - economic issues for instance or the iniquities of the tax system. I will be clear and state that there will not be an explicit 'political' thread in its place.

 

I'm happy to bow to whatever the consensus is. There is no right or wrong here, we just need to find a balance and express it with grace and consideration.

Edited September 2, 2016 by wrigglefingers
Edited to remove an extraneous apostrophe that was causing me some offence. Speelchucker again I 'spect.

[Jerra]

I argued at the time, that provided debate was well-mannered and courteous, then that was what we wished to see, moreover, I believed that you, as a set of intelligent people, could stay on-topic.

 

There was some misbehaviour which was stamped on for good moderating reasons,

You make the very point I have been making all the way since the start of the politics/religion debacle. The topics can be discussed in a perfectly well mannered fashion and those who over step the mark can be dealt with.

 

The wholesale banning (censorship) of subjects makes moderating more difficult because mods then have to decided when each individual post strays too far towards either subject. Whereas if no subject is banned all that is required is a decision with regard to good taste abuse etc.

 

The forced banning of any subject also (for me at least) leaves a bad taste as it smacks of censorship and leaves posters with the dilemma mods have but from the opposite side - "can I say that or will I be in trouble" as opposed to "is that really politics should it be deleted". I think it will make more work for mods.

 

Just my opinion other opinions are of course available and equally valid.

 

EDIT: To remove a letter left from what I had snipped to concentrate on the part I wanted to comment on.

Edited September 2, 2016 by Jerra

[dogless]

I haven't read the thread, as it doesn't interest me.

 

However it's obviously very popular with some, looking at the number of pages.

 

I would suggest it's serving a purpose, and will die a natural death if and when people lose interest, like all threads.

 

The Mods don't have to close threads down.

 

Rog

[LoneWolf]

i noticed that the other place we aren't supposed to mention isn't mentioned in the new rules. I'm wondering if that means we can now mention the place we weren't supposed to mention before but now can or if it's not mentioned in the rules because it's not allowed to be mentioned anywhere and it remains an unwritten rule not to mention the place we cant mention.

[wrigglefingers]

i noticed that the other place we aren't supposed to mention isn't mentioned in the new rules. I'm wondering if that means we can now mention the place we weren't supposed to mention before but now can or if it's not mentioned in the rules because it's not allowed to be mentioned anywhere and it remains an unwritten rule not to mention the place we cant mention.

Is that a question or statement, Wolfie? Either way, it's a blinkin' good one to which I don't know the answer. Will find out tomorrow for you. Probably too tired now ...

[MtB]

i noticed that the other place we aren't supposed to mention isn't mentioned in the new rules. I'm wondering if that means we can now mention the place we weren't supposed to mention before but now can or if it's not mentioned in the rules because it's not allowed to be mentioned anywhere and it remains an unwritten rule not to mention the place we cant mention.

 

 

Yes it is!

 

Although they carefully skirt around mentioning the other place by name...

[MtB]

"It is not permitted to engage in inter-site ‘flaming’ whereby disruptive content from elsewhere other than CWDF is discussed in relation to member activities on CWDF."